COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis 

CALVIN CORNELL RUFFIN, SR. 

 

v. Record No. 1792-99-1 

 

ANDREANIA (PACE) RUFFIN MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

ANDREANIA (PACE) RUFFIN FEBRUARY 22, 2000 

 

v. Record No. 1804-99-1 

 

CALVIN CORNELL RUFFIN, SR. 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS 

Verbena M. Askew, Judge 

 (Frederic L. Moschel; Moschel, Gallo & 

Clancy, L.L.C., on briefs), for Calvin 

Cornell Ruffin, Sr. 

 (Vicki Beard, on briefs), for Andreania 

(Pace) Ruffin. 

 

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code 

§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.

 Calvin Cornell Ruffin, Sr. and Andreania (Pace) Ruffin appeal 

the final decree of divorce entered by the circuit court. In his 

appeal, husband contends that the trial court erred in awarding 

wife $1,000 in monthly spousal support. In her appeal, wife 

contends that the trial court erred by (1) failing to find that 

husband held his lottery winnings in a constructive trust for the 

benefit of wife and the parties' two children; (2) failing to find 

that husband was at fault in the dissolution of the marriage; (3) 
failing to order husband to pay all outstanding marital debt; and 

(4) failing to award wife more monthly spousal support. Upon 

reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that 

these appeals are without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm 

the decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27. 

Background

 The parties married in 1989, had two children, and separated 

in November 1995. The wife filed a bill of complaint for divorce 

on August 19, 1996. Based upon evidence presented at a hearing 

held on September 19, 1996, the trial court entered a pendente

lite order on October 1, 1996, directing husband to pay $120 a 

week in child support and $80 a week in spousal support, beginning 

September 20, 1996. Husband did not make any support payments 

until January 1997. On September 28, 1996, husband won $4.9 

million in a lottery, with a gross payout for twenty years 

exceeding $243,000 per annum. After husband claimed his winnings 

in January 1997, wife filed a motion to increase support. By 

order entered March 30, 1998, the trial court ordered husband to 

pay $2,446 in monthly child support. Monthly spousal support 

remained $344, and the trial court ordered husband to pay $823 to 

wife for payment of over $1,100 in monthly marital debts including 

the mortgage. The trial court left to be resolved at a later 

hearing whether the additional payment of $823 was to be 

characterized as additional spousal support. 

- 2 -
 By order entered April 30, 1997, the trial court referred the 

matter to a commissioner in chancery to determine the grounds for 

divorce, equitable distribution and support. The commissioner's 

hearing was held on February 17, 1998, and the report filed with 

the court on May 4, 1998. The commissioner recommended that 

husband be granted a divorce on the ground of a one-year 

separation. The commissioner also recommended that wife receive 

$750 in monthly spousal support for a period of four years; that 

the parties split the marital debt equally; and that wife's 

request for the imposition of a constructive trust on husband's 

lottery winnings be denied. Both parties filed exceptions to the 

report. In its decree a vinculo matrimonii entered July 2, 1999, 

the trial court granted wife's exception to the commissioner's 

recommended spousal support award. The trial court awarded wife 

$1,000 in permanent monthly spousal support. The trial court 

otherwise accepted the commissioner's report. Both parties 

appealed. 

Constructive Trust

 Wife contends that the trial court erred by failing to find 

that husband's lottery winnings were subject to a constructive 

trust for her benefit and that of the parties' children. Wife 

argues that husband used his last available funds to purchase the 

lottery tickets instead of paying his court-ordered child and 

spousal support. The commissioner found no evidence of fraud or 

unjust enrichment warranting the imposition of a constructive 

- 3 -
trust on husband's winnings. The trial court agreed with that 

finding. 

 We find no error in the trial court's determination. 

"'Constructive trusts arise, independently 

of the intention of the parties, by 

construction of law; being fastened upon the 

conscience of him who has the legal estate, 

in order to prevent what otherwise would be 

a fraud. They occur not only where property 

has been acquired by fraud or improper 

means, but also where it has been fairly and 

properly acquired, but it is contrary to the 

principles of equity that it should be 

retained, at least for the acquirer's own 

benefit.'" 

Rash v. Hilb, Rogal & Hamilton Co., 251 Va. 281, 287, 467 S.E.2d 

791, 795 (1996) (citations and emphasis omitted). "[T]he burden 

of establishing the grounds for the imposition of a constructive 

trust [is] by clear and convincing evidence." Hill v. Brooks, 253 

Va. 168, 174, 482 S.E.2d 816, 820 (1997). "Moreover, in order to 

be entitled to the benefit of a constructive trust, a claimant's 

money must be 'distinctly traced' into the chose in action, fund, 

or other property which is to be made the subject of the trust." 

Crestar Bank v. Williams, 250 Va. 198, 204, 462 S.E.2d 333, 335 

(1995). 

 Wife contends that the $2 husband used to purchase the 

winning lottery ticket on September 28, 1996 were already owed to 

her and their children pursuant to the pendente lite order of the 

trial court at the September 19, 1996 hearing. She argues that a 

constructive trust arose as of September 20, 1996, the date when 

- 4 -
his first support payments were due.1 However, no fund existed on 

that date upon which to impose a constructive trust, as husband 

did not win the lottery until eight days later. It is true that 

husband's first and second weekly payments were outstanding on the 

day husband purchased the winning lottery ticket. However, as 

acknowledged by wife, husband had limited funds on September 20 

due in part to the fact he recently had purchased a car. Although 

husband's car payments were undoubtedly a greater drain on his 

ability to pay support than the $2 he used to purchase the lottery 

tickets, wife argued that the money husband used to purchase the 

tickets was traceable solely to funds obligated for support. 

 While husband's failure to pay his court-ordered support was 

reprehensible, wife failed to present sufficient evidence of fraud 

or unjust enrichment to warrant the imposition of a constructive 

trust on his lottery winnings. Husband purchased the lottery 

tickets pursuant to his habit established throughout the marriage. 

As a result of his winnings, he was capable of providing greater 

financial support to his children than at any time during the 

marriage. We cannot say that husband's good fortune so reeked of 

injustice as to require the imposition of a constructive trust on 

his lottery winnings. 

 1

 This ruling was subsequently memorialized in an order 

entered October 1, 1996. 

- 5 -
Grounds of Divorce

 Wife also contends that the trial court erred in failing to 

award her a divorce on the ground of desertion. The commissioner 

recommended that husband be granted a divorce on the basis of a 

one-year separation. The trial court accepted that 

recommendation. Assuming without deciding that there was 

sufficient evidence to support a finding of desertion by husband, 

"[i]t is well established that 'where dual or multiple grounds for 

divorce exist, the trial judge can use his sound discretion to 

select the grounds upon which he will grant the divorce.'" 

Williams v. Williams, 14 Va. App. 217, 220, 415 S.E.2d 252, 253 

(1992) (citation omitted). Evidence established that the parties 

lived separate and apart in excess of one year intending the 

separation to be final. Therefore, there was evidence supporting 

the trial court's decision. We find no abuse of discretion in the 

trial court's decision not to award wife a divorce on the ground 

of desertion. 

Marital Debts

 Wife contends that the trial court erred by failing to assign 

approximately $8,000 in marital debts to husband. Under Code 

§ 20-107.3(C), the trial court has the authority "to apportion and 

order the payment of the debts of the parties, or either of them, 

that are incurred prior to the dissolution of the marriage, based 

upon the factors listed in subsection E." "[D]ecisions concerning 

equitable distribution rest within the sound discretion of the 

- 6 -
trial court and will not be reversed on appeal unless plainly 

wrong or unsupported by the evidence." McDavid v. McDavid, 19 Va. 

App. 406, 407-08, 451 S.E.2d 713, 715 (1994). There was no 

evidence that the debts were incurred solely for the benefit of 

one party. Wife's argument, distilled to its essence, is that 

husband's post-separation lottery winnings give him greater 

resources from which to pay these debts. We find that argument 

unpersuasive, and find no error in the trial court's decision to 

require the parties to share the marital debts equally. 

Spousal Support

 Finally, wife contends that the trial court erred by failing 

to award her more spousal support. The trial court considered 

both the statutory factors and the evidence before making its 

award. While wife faced greater expenses with the prospective 

relocation to a larger residence, she also had the greater income 

throughout the marriage. In fact, wife was the primary wage 

earner. We find no error in the trial court's refusal to award a 

greater amount of spousal support. 

 Likewise, we find no error in the trial court's requirement 

that husband pay wife $1,000 per month permanent spousal support. 

The trial court's determinations, supported by the evidence, 

imposed no bar to wife's entitlement to support. The amount 

ordered is consistent with her proven need and husband's proven 

ability to pay. 

- 7 -
 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

 Affirmed.

- 8 -